Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second and third requests for review to straighten the roof hip, side and rear extension and dormer extension at 182 and 184 North Deeisde Road Aberdeen.  The two applications were considered together as the applications were very similar and were semi detached properties.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority shehad not been involved in any way with the consideration or determination of the applications under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance to the Body only.  She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) two delegated reports by Mr Ross McMahon, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notices both dated 1 April 2016; (3) plans showing the proposals; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Ms Greene advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Ms Greene provided a summary of the applications and advised that the application comprised a traditional semi-detached property of slate and granite construction, set on the boundary of an established residential area forming part of Milltimber.  The dwellings sits approximately 32m to the north of North Deeside Road in an elevated position and they both feature a hipped roof, chimney stack, pink granite frontage and projecting front gable with a bay window beneath.  The site also lies within a Residential Area as identified in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012.

In regards to consultees and letters of representation, Ms Greene advised that for property 182, two letters of support had been received and one for 184.  There were no comments received from statutory consultees.

The Grounds of Appeal Statement which accompanied the Notice of Review advised that (a) they did not feel that the dormer would appear dominant and the prescriptive criteria of the Council’s Householder Development Guide had been adhered to, (b) any impact, would be marginal and the design is similar to that of the extended adjacent dwellings, which would result in an enhancement of the street scene in terms of consistency and respect the character and setting of the wider area and (c) the dormer on the front elevation will appear subservient to the main features of the dwelling, retaining the projecting gable, well balanced fenestration and sitting below the ridge height.

The delegated report advised that the stated reasons for refusal for both properties of planning permission were as follows:-

the proposal does not fully comply with the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, namely Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), H1 (Residential Areas) and the associated Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide, in that the proposed front dormer extension would compromise existing architectural features of the dwelling and additionally would have a significant detrimental impact on the visual character and amenity of the surrounding area. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations - including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan - that are of sufficient weight to warrant approval of the application. Full regard has been given to all matters raised in representations, but neither do they outweigh the policy position as detailed above, nor do they justify approval of the application.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Ms Greene.

The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.  The members of the Local Review Body therefore agreed that a site visit, a hearing session nor further written representations were required, as members felt they had enough information before them.

Members unanimously reversed the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and therefore approved both applications unconditionally.

In coming to their decision, the Local Review Body had regard to the provisions of the Development Plan as required by Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

More specifically, the reasons in which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The Review Body did not feel that the proposed front dormer extension would compromise the existing architectural features of the dwelling and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the visual character and amenity of the surrounding area.

-       COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener